NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/13296102.htm

Tookie Williams was one of the originators of the Crips gang. He was convicted of the murder of 4 people in 1979 during 2 armed robberies. Since then he has turned away from the gang mentality and written several books for young people discouraging them from joining gangs. He is sentenced to die by lethal injection in less than 2 weeks. Here are a couple of opinion pieces presenting the pros and cons of carrying out his execution:

Pro: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20380
Con: http://www.savetookie.org/bio.html

My question is, whatever his motives, if his writing can discourage one young person from violent activity, aren't we, by his death, sentencing others to death? And, what exactly, does his death accomplish? Will even one of the 4 victims return to life?

Those who know me on here, know I am several clicks right of a liberal, but I have some serious issues with this man's execution. What do you think?

PS: If this thread has been done before please let me know.

See what the victims' families have to say. Listen to them, afterall, they were victims of his evil deeds as well.

I've read and heard what the victims' families have to say and I understand their desire for revenge. But, is the purpose of our courts to exact revenge or to punish the criminal? What more could the families gain by his death than by his being in prison for the rest of his life?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/13296102.htm

Tookie Williams was one of the originators of the Crips gang. He was convicted of the murder of 4 people in 1979 during 2 armed robberies. Since then he has turned away from the gang mentality and written several books for young people discouraging them from joining gangs. He is sentenced to die by lethal injection in less than 2 weeks. Here are a couple of opinion pieces presenting the pros and cons of carrying out his execution:

Pro: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20380
Con: http://www.savetookie.org/bio.html

My question is, whatever his motives, if his writing can discourage one young person from violent activity, aren't we, by his death, sentencing others to death? And, what exactly, does his death accomplish? Will even one of the 4 victims return to life?

Those who know me on here, know I am several clicks right of a liberal, but I have some serious issues with this man's execution. What do you think?

PS: If this thread has been done before please let me know.

His writings, if they have any merit, will live on.

He should die as punishment for his crimes---not only the murders he directly committed, but for all the crimes committed by his gang---rapes, murders, terroristic activities, drug dealing, etc.

My daughter had a friend gunned down "by mistake" by one of them.

A former girlfriend was once caught in the crossfire of a gang shootout while waiting for a bus, had to throw herself and her baby to the ground to avoid being hit.

If he was doing this in a foreign country, he would have been captured and executed already. As it is, he is guilty of his crimes, and needs to be punished.

He has not given up his gang mentality. He still refuses to answer questions about his gang, their organization and activities---he is still an OG, Original Gangster, and needs to pay!!!:mp5:

taking my opposition to the death penalty out of the equation....

if anyone deserves the death penalty, tookie does. his change of heart is not any more relevant to him than it was to the other 1000 people executed in the united states since the death penalty was re-deemed constitutional.

what good does the execution of ANYONE do? given that the answer is "none" what difference does it make that there is no good to come from tookie's execution?

taking my opposition to the death penalty out of the equation....

if anyone deserves the death penalty, tookie does. his change of heart is not any more relevant to him than it was to the other 1000 people executed in the united states since the death penalty was re-deemed constitutional.

what good does the execution of ANYONE do? given that the answer is "none" what difference does it make that there is no good to come from tookie's execution?

Which, I guess, is where I was taking this using Tookie as an example. What good comes of the execution of any person? It doesn't undo the crimes they committed.

I've read and heard what the victims' families have to say and I understand their desire for revenge. But, is the purpose of our courts to exact revenge or to punish the criminal? What more could the families gain by his death than by his being in prison for the rest of his life?

crime committed? the ultimate crime (murder)

punishment merited? the ultimate punishment (death)

He took the lives of 4 others, and through his gang activities, indirectly, the lives of countless more...

He doesn't get to keep his...if the punishment of staying in prison was so much worse than death, why would he and his supporters be lobbying so hard for him to stay in prison?

Answer: because he knows or fears that he will probably end up facing far worse punishment after he dies!

And yes, let me, I will push the button/pull the switch.

You don't trust your state with your tax money, you don't trust it to make impartial decisions over zoning issues, you can't stand the way it takes a serious problem and tries to make partisan gains out of it...

But you've no problem about giving it the right to kill your own citizens? It's a barbaric throwback to a more brutal age - pleasing focus groups be damned, the death penalty shouldn't be on the books of any modern, enlightened state, even if a majority of voters back the idea. Some things are too important to be left to the lowest common denominator.

crime committed? the ultimate crime (murder)

punishment merited? the ultimate punishment (death)

He took the lives of 4 others, and through his gang activities, indirectly, the lives of countless more...

He doesn't get to keep his...if the punishment of staying in prison was so much worse than death, why would he and his supporters be lobbying so hard for him to stay in prison?

Answer: because he knows or fears that he will probably end up facing far worse punishment after he dies!

And yes, let me, I will push the button/pull the switch.

So the appropriate punishment for murder is murder? Maybe we should start chopping off the hands of thieves, too. What if Tookie writes only one more sentence in the course of his life and that sentence got through to one kid who, without Tookie's insight, would have gone on to kill more people. Why is it so important that this man's voice be silenced forever?

KILL TOOKIE!

He gunned down a father, mother and child. He made a man, who happened to be a veteran with a good job, get down on his knees and beg for his life, and then shot him in the back with a shotgun.

Death isn't even enough. Fuck him, and fuck Snoop Dogg too. BTW, he has had 11 incidents in prison, including assault on a guard and raping an inmate.

I say feed his ass to lions. And so help me god, if people riot over this, I will push for them to be punished to the fullest extent of the law with maximum sentences!


BTW - It's pretty freaking sad that the people defending this Cretans life are the same ones who have no problems with letting a doctor shove a vacuum up their vagina and sucking out their baby, and then puncturing it's head with a steel spike. You people are sick!

So the appropriate punishment for murder is murder? Maybe we should start chopping off the hands of thieves, too. What if Tookie writes only one more sentence in the course of his life and that sentence got through to one kid who, without Tookie's insight, would have gone on to kill more people. Why is it so important that this man's voice be silenced forever?

The punishment for murder is not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of innocent life.

Tookie is not innocent. His penalty is not unlawful.

The penalty shows what we think of the lives he took.

If the innocent people he killed are not worth him being put to death, we don't value those lives more than his.

So if Saddam Hussein writes a nice book, he shouldn't be punished?

If someone rapes my daughter and writes a nice poem about it, he shouldn't be punished?

KILL HIM ALREADY!

So the appropriate punishment for murder is murder? Maybe we should start chopping off the hands of thieves, too.

Didn't that work pretty well?

I've read and heard what the victims' families have to say and I understand their desire for revenge. But, is the purpose of our courts to exact revenge or to punish the criminal? What more could the families gain by his death than by his being in prison for the rest of his life?

Beware of the dark side! Anger, fear, aggression, revenge;the dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice.

KILL TOOKIE!

He gunned down a father, mother and child. He made a man, who happened to be a veteran with a good job, get down on his knees and beg for his life, and then shot him in the back with a shotgun.

Death isn't even enough. Fuck him, and fuck Snoop Dogg too. BTW, he has had 11 incidents in prison, including assault on a guard and raping an inmate.

I say feed his ass to lions. And so help me god, if people riot over this, I will push for them to be punished to the fullest extent of the law with maximum sentences!

BTW - It's pretty freaking sad that the people defending this Cretans life are the same ones who have no problems with letting a doctor shove a vacuum up their vagina and sucking out their baby, and then puncturing it's head with a steel spike. You people are sick!

I hope you're not referring to me as pro-abortion. I am one of the REAL pro-life people who believe that ending another person's life from conception to natural death is wrong.

I am also not misguided enough to believe that Tookie is a choirboy. I know he's still ruthless and despicable in many ways. But, he does lend a voice of reason to youths who may be considering violent gang life. As for the vet he killed, have you read the remarks by his daughter? She isn't asking for his death.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0511210223nov21,1,3690665.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

Murder victim's daughter forgives
Speaks to students to give meaning to father's '79 slaying

By Maria L. La Ganga
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Published November 21, 2005


SANTA CLARA, Calif -- Rebecca Owens spoke Sunday about pain but not about punishment, about responsibility but not about revenge.

She was 8 when her father was murdered--shot twice in the back at close range. She is 35 today and won't say whether Stanley "Tookie" Williams should be executed next month for the 1979 murders of Albert Owens and three others in Southern California.

"I have not asked anyone to be killed," Owens told a gathering here of 1,200 high school students, during what she described as her first public appearance. "I did not make that decision. A jury of 12 people based on the evidence decided the crime was so heinous that it deserved death."

She would not say whether she agrees with the jury that declared the co-founder of the Crips street gang guilty and sentenced him to die. She also insisted she was not "advocating his death."

"I'm not here to say that," Owens responded to a student's question during the Junior State of America convention here. "I'm not doing this out of vengeance.

"I'm here for me," she continued. "For hope. I want my dad's death to mean something."

The Junior State of America is a 71-year-old organization designed to inspire high school students to be active in politics. On Saturday, Williams addressed the group from San Quentin's Death Row as part of a panel discussion that included rapper Snoop Dogg. The rapper is working to help persuade Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to grant Williams clemency.

Williams has denied that he committed the murders and insists that he underwent a transformation after a decade in prison. Along with Barbara Becnel, he has co-written books for children advocating an end to violence and an avoidance of gang life. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize for his anti-gang efforts.

Owens seemed angry that Williams has not taken responsibility for the murders and has not apologized to the families of the victims. But with time, she said, she has forgiven the man who murdered her father in the convenience store where he worked.
She appeared Sunday to give the students the victim's side of the death penalty debate. But Owens said she would not "talk about how I feel about the death penalty, out of respect to the state of California."
A widow, mother of four and cosmetology student, she did not reveal her married name or where she lives. She does not allow her picture to be taken.

Owens was 4 when her father left her family. She learned of his death through a phone call from a relative, she said, and "I remember crying all day." Her mother had remarried, she said, and her stepfather would not allow her to attend her father's funeral.

She spent most of her life believing that the man who murdered her father had been convicted and executed; family members insisted that was the case. But four years ago, she said, she learned that Williams was alive and had been nominated for a Nobel Prize; the news "hit me like a ton of bricks."

She has been invited to watch the Dec. 13 execution, but if it goes forward, she plans to be at home instead.

"I don't need to go and watch another man die," she said.

Saying "Sorry" gets you off of the death penalty? He was put in prison for murder and armed robbery. On top of that he was one of the orginal organizers of the Crips. In a sense he is indirectly responcible for everything the Crips have done.

He's recieved the death penalty and should take his punishment like a man rather than beg for his life like a coward. He should have thought about it when he killed those people in 1979. Think how one of them begged for their life and he executed one.

Isn't it bullshit when right at deaths door people beg for forgiveness? Their a hardass all the way up until their death then they beg for forgiveness/mercy. Even criminals that find religion right before their executed. Like saying your sorry could get you out of your punishment.

(judge)"Your convicted of murder 27 people . What do you have to say for yourself?"

(Criminal) I'm sorry?

(judge)"Your free to go."

I hope you're not referring to me as pro-abortion. I am one of the REAL pro-life people who believe that ending another person's life from conception to natural death is wrong.

I am also not misguided enough to believe that Tookie is a choirboy. I know he's still ruthless and despicable in many ways. But, he does lend a voice of reason to youths who may be considering violent gang life. As for the vet he killed, have you read the remarks by his daughter? She isn't asking for his death.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0511210223nov21,1,3690665.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true

If we only put people to death when the victim's family asked, that would be for revenge.

We do it as a policy, to show that innocent lives are worth the ultimate penalty, regardless of the "feelings" of the victims or anyone else. We cannot change the laws to suit the whims of everyone's feelings.

BTW - It's pretty freaking sad that the people defending this Cretans life are the same ones who have no problems with letting a doctor shove a vacuum up their vagina and sucking out their baby, and then puncturing it's head with a steel spike. You people are sick!
Gods you anti-abortionists are as bad as the frothing-at-the-mouth animal activists with your bullshit descriptions.

Didn't that work pretty well?

Except that the US likes to portray Muslim countries as barbaric and backwards suicide bomber factories soo guess that's not an option here.

My question is, whatever his motives, if his writing can discourage one young person from violent activity, aren't we, by his death, sentencing others to death?

No. First it is entirely hypothetical whether said "young person" would engage in violence that resulted in death at all. Second, it's not sentencing but the unfortunate consequences of "Tookie's" own criminal actions and the justice he receives for them.

And, what exactly, does his death accomplish?

Justice.

Will even one of the 4 victims return to life?

Irrelevant.

If we only put people to death when the victim's family asked, that would be for revenge.

We do it as a policy, to show that innocent lives are worth the ultimate penalty, regardless of the "feelings" of the victims or anyone else. We cannot change the laws to suit the whims of everyone's feelings.

But what good does an execution do other than satisfy demands for revenge? Are we any safer? Is our air cleaner? Do we all sleep a little better each night knowing we are not sharing this earth with such a person? Obviously the death penalty has not been a deterrent to murder so just what positive outcome do we expect?

Zooke,

I am happy and proud to see you being consistent and working against the death penalty.

You are right that the death penalty is wrong. Hang in there.

Gods you anti-abortionists are as bad as the frothing-at-the-mouth animal activists with your bullshit descriptions.

Don't encourage me to hijack my own thread with another abortion discussion. If anything abortion is more heinous than execution.

I hope the blacks really do riot over this thing.. they can burn down their own neighborhoods, kill a few Koreans, etc.. y'know, let off some steam like last time.. then we can ship them off to Pomona (like last time) and build a museum over the charred remains of whatever part of L.A. gets it the worst.. L.A. needs a new museum, I've been saying it.. we have too few for such a massive population.. I mean, we've got the Holocaust museum, but that's depressing. Tourists don't come to L.A. to remember the Holocaust.. I say we get us a museum like the Field Museum in Chicago, or maybe even an aquarium! :)

Museum or no museum, I'll be smilin' when this guy gets the needle either way. It's overdue.

Zooke,

I am happy and proud to see you being consistent and working against the death penalty.

You are right that the death penalty is wrong. Hang in there.

Thanks, we finally agree on something.:) I believe that the taking of another's life is not in our hands. All life is valuable in some way.

KILL TOOKIE!

He gunned down a father, mother and child. He made a man, who happened to be a veteran with a good job, get down on his knees and beg for his life, and then shot him in the back with a shotgun.

Death isn't even enough. Fuck him, and fuck Snoop Dogg too. BTW, he has had 11 incidents in prison, including assault on a guard and raping an inmate.

I say feed his ass to lions. And so help me god, if people riot over this, I will push for them to be punished to the fullest extent of the law with maximum sentences!


BTW - It's pretty freaking sad that the people defending this Cretans life are the same ones who have no problems with letting a doctor shove a vacuum up their vagina and sucking out their baby, and then puncturing it's head with a steel spike. You people are sick!

It's hard to have a rational debate when your colleagues make posts like this. What are you trying to prove? Assume I know you can have a temper tantrum, OK? I'll do you the courtesy of pretending the hyberbole and exaggerations in your post are there only for effect (see underlined passages).

It doesn't matter what he did. Nor does it matter one bit if he reformed his life subsequently (or not).

What matters is the principle of what you're about to have done in your name - you're about to kill. The only message that sends out to the general public is that the state is a bigger killer than you, little man, so don't you break our laws, y'hear? It doesn't say killing people is wrong, quite the reverse; it legitimises killing for revenge, or for punishment.

How can you hope to improve society by sending out that message? You're saying that stabilty and justice is a function of _power_, not considerations of what's right or wrong, or respecting one another. It's appealing to primal notions of justifying violence.

I hope the blacks really do riot over this thing.. they can burn down their own neighborhoods, kill a few Koreans, etc.. y'know, let off some steam like last time.. then we can ship them off to Pomona (like last time) and build a museum over the charred remains of whatever part of L.A. gets it the worst.. L.A. needs a new museum, I've been saying it.. we have too few for such a massive population.. I mean, we've got the Holocaust museum, but that's depressing. Tourists don't come to L.A. to remember the Holocaust.. I say we get us a museum like the Field Museum in Chicago, or maybe even an aquarium! :)

Museum or no museum, I'll be smilin' when this guy gets the needle either way. It's overdue.

I hope that better minds can control the anger that will flow if Tookie is executed. That they will be able to direct that anger into constructive effort towards stopping this insanity that says one kind of murder is wrong while another is right.

If we only put people to death when the victim's family asked, that would be for revenge.

We do it as a policy, to show that innocent lives are worth the ultimate penalty, regardless of the "feelings" of the victims or anyone else. We cannot change the laws to suit the whims of everyone's feelings.


Laws shouldn't be written on a person(s) feelings. That means whoever is in power can rewrite the law because they "feel" their idea is better. Laws need to be written out logically. If you know if you commit a murder and you know the punishment is execution. Then you will think harder about commiting the action since you know you'll die if you do it and get caught. A way to explain it is to compare it to a barbed wire fence. "It keeps the honest people honest."

Stricter punishment for harsh crimes are needed. Tookie should be made an example of. So these Thugs and gangsters know that they'll end up just like tookie unless they change their ways.

Don't encourage me to hijack my own thread with another abortion discussion. If anything abortion is more heinous than execution.
Can you actually hijack your OWN thread? But anyway, I agree. I don't want to get into it either, being firmly in opposition to you on that particular subject.

Gods you anti-abortionists are as bad as the frothing-at-the-mouth animal activists with your bullshit descriptions.
Your just pissed because I call it like I see it. Pro-choice sounds SO much better than "Pro-suck out babies with vacuums and peirce their skull like a fucking piece of meat because the mother can't be bothered to take care of the kid, even though she has no problem spreading her legs."

Pro-chioce is so great a description, in fact, that I'm gonna start using it myself. I'm Pro-choice on the death penalty. I'm pro-choice on pre-emptive strikes, I'm pro-chioce on punching Pro-Abortionists in the face when I see them. SEE? That makes it all better! I'm not a bad person, I'm just pro-chioce! :rolleyes:

I hope that better minds can control the anger that will flow if Tookie is executed. That they will be able to direct that anger into constructive effort towards stopping this insanity that says one kind of murder is wrong while another is right.

I'm doubting we'll see riots.. I just felt like exploring the hypothetical.. we really do need a good-quality museum in this town.. :( That we don't have one is the real crime here..

But what good does an execution do other than satisfy demands for revenge? Saves us from having to pay for the scumbags food, shelter, heat, clothes, education, full medical care, dental care, etc etc etc.

Good enough for me!

Any punishment becomes meaningless if it is not enforced. He was sentenced to death. He should die.

But what good does an execution do other than satisfy demands for revenge? Are we any safer? Is our air cleaner? Do we all sleep a little better each night knowing we are not sharing this earth with such a person? Obviously the death penalty has not been a deterrent to murder so just what positive outcome do we expect?

It will send a message to his gangsters that no matter how many celebrities and other well-meaning people are on your side, you will pay the price for committing the crime. :)

Safer? Yes---he had planned to escape by killing two sheriff's deputies. So no more killing for him. :D

And yes, I would sleep better knowing that the death penalty is being properly applied. I just wish the process were faster. I once heard that Thomas Jefferson advocated enacting the death penalty within two days of conviction, with an exception---no executions on Sunday, so if you got convicted on Friday, you would have to wait until Monday to meet your maker. I have searched, but cannot come up with a source attaching that idea to Jefferson. Darn.

Those of you who believe Tookie should die, have any of you read any of his books? I have. He is a strong voice encouraging young people to not make the same mistakes he did, to respect others, and to aim higher for a better life. Many people who were at risk of taking a bad path in life have told how Tookie's books gave them new insight and gave them the impetus to become something worthwhile. No one is pretending that this man will ever walk the streets again. But, he can live on in prison and continue to be an example of how not to live your life.

Your just pissed because I call it like I see it. Pro-choice sounds SO much better than "Pro-suck out babies with vacuums and peirce their skull like a fucking piece of meat because the mother can't be bothered to take care of the kid, even though she has no problem spreading her legs."

Pro-chioce is so great a description, in fact, that I'm gonna start using it myself. I'm Pro-choice on the death penalty. I'm pro-choice on pre-emptive strikes, I'm pro-chioce on punching Pro-Abortionists in the face when I see them. SEE? That makes it all better! I'm not a bad person, I'm just pro-chioce! :rolleyes:

Misogyny, ghoulishness, rudeness masquarading as forthrightness... what a lovely persona you project.

Tookie Williams was one of the originators of the Crips gang. He was convicted of the murder of 4 people in 1979 during 2 armed robberies. Since then he has turned away from the gang mentality and written several books for young people discouraging them from joining gangs. He is sentenced to die by lethal injection in less than 2 weeks. Here are a couple of opinion pieces presenting the pros and cons of carrying out his execution:


My question is, whatever his motives, if his writing can discourage one young person from violent activity, aren't we, by his death, sentencing others to death? And, what exactly, does his death accomplish? Will even one of the 4 victims return to life?



Well, let's see. Justice will be served. That's one thing. If you want to say that he is now doing good works by writing these books to discourage young people from following the gang life and that that is a good that outweighs his bad deeds (of murder and robbery) then I would say... WRONG!

Think how more effectively his books would discourage someone with the footnote at the end explaining the the murdering thug who wrote the book got a needle shoved in his arm and is now dead for the deeds he committed. Now that would be a good deed.

Let me ask you a question... would you want him living next door to you? would you want him within arms reach of your children?

I say ice him... in fact, do it slowly, revive him and then kill him again.

Your just pissed because I call it like I see it. Pro-choice sounds SO much better than "Pro-suck out babies with vacuums and peirce their skull like a fucking piece of meat because the mother can't be bothered to take care of the kid, even though she has no problem spreading her legs."

Pro-chioce is so great a description, in fact, that I'm gonna start using it myself. I'm Pro-choice on the death penalty. I'm pro-choice on pre-emptive strikes, I'm pro-chioce on punching Pro-Abortionists in the face when I see them. SEE? That makes it all better! I'm not a bad person, I'm just pro-chioce! :rolleyes:

An embryo is not a baby. Besides the term pro-choice is appropriate because they support the mother's choice to abort the embryo. Anti-embryo would not be appropriate, because they don't postulate the abortion of all embryo.

[/threadhighjack]

Those of you who believe Tookie should die, have any of you read any of his books? I have. He is a strong voice encouraging young people to not make the same mistakes he did, to respect others, and to aim higher for a better life. Many people who were at risk of taking a bad path in life have told how Tookie's books gave them new insight and gave them the impetus to become something worthwhile. No one is pretending that this man will ever walk the streets again. But, he can live on in prison and continue to be an example of how not to live your life.

He didn't write any of those books.. whoever did will still be alive to bring happiness and joy to the kiddies, don't fret. ;)

Those of you who believe Tookie should die, have any of you read any of his books? I have. He is a strong voice encouraging young people to not make the same mistakes he did, to respect others, and to aim higher for a better life. Many people who were at risk of taking a bad path in life have told how Tookie's books gave them new insight and gave them the impetus to become something worthwhile. No one is pretending that this man will ever walk the streets again. But, he can live on in prison and continue to be an example of how not to live your life.

At taxpayers' expense.

Are you planning to visit him? If not, then why not clear his cell for one of the folks that isn't following his example? It isn't like his books will get buried with him. People can still read them after he is dead. And, oh, won't they be just that much more poignant!

Well, let's see. Justice will be served. That's one thing. If you want to say that he is now doing good works by writing these books to discourage young people from following the gang life and that that is a good that outweighs his bad deeds (of murder and robbery) then I would say... WRONG!

Think how more effectively his books would discourage someone with the footnote at the end explaining the the murdering thug who wrote the book got a needle shoved in his arm and is now dead for the deeds he committed. Now that would be a good deed.

Let me ask you a question... would you want him living next door to you? would you want him within arms reach of your children?

I say ice him... in fact, do it slowly, revive him and then kill him again.

How is it just, how is it right, to punish the awful crime of murder by killing people? You're legitimising killing as a way to solve problems.

It's not a question of good deeds outweighing bad ones, and no one's suggesting he be released except you. Lock him away for ever, or stick him on a heavily regulated island society of ex-murderers after his (hypothetical) term runs out, whatever - but by killing him, you're saying murder is acceptable.

Well, let's see. Justice will be served. That's one thing. If you want to say that he is now doing good works by writing these books to discourage young people from following the gang life and that that is a good that outweighs his bad deeds (of murder and robbery) then I would say... WRONG!

Think how more effectively his books would discourage someone with the footnote at the end explaining the the murdering thug who wrote the book got a needle shoved in his arm and is now dead for the deeds he committed. Now that would be a good deed.

Let me ask you a question... would you want him living next door to you? would you want him within arms reach of your children?

I say ice him... in fact, do it slowly, revive him and then kill him again.

There is no question that he will ever get out of prison so the option of his living next door to me is moot. Now, the possibility that the kid next door might change his mind about killing me after reading Tookie is not moot...and we have one really strange kid next door to us. Your choice of execution is no less barbaric than the crimes he committed.

Elgesh']Misogyny, ghoulishness, rudeness masquarading as forthrightness... what a lovely persona you project.
At least I haven't executed anyone. *shrugs*

And BTW, I don't masquerade my rudeness one bit. I'm openly rude to baby killers.;)

At least I haven't executed anyone. *shrugs*

And BTW, I don't masquerade my rudeness one bit. I'm openly rude to baby killers.;)

How do you justify capital punishment and condemn abortion? They're both the ending of a human life at the hands of men. What gives you, I, or anyone else the right to determine who is fit to live and who isn't?

At least I haven't executed anyone. *shrugs*

And BTW, I don't masquerade my rudeness one bit. I'm openly rude to baby killers.;)

lol! :D

But seriously, guy, none of us are baby-killers... and actually, by living in country with the death penalty, and by supporting it, you have vicariously executed people. You could have spoken out against the state murdering its citizens, but you didn't. Ergo, yes, you have executed people :)

Elgesh']How is it just, how is it right, to punish the awful crime of murder by killing people? You're legitimising killing as a way to solve problems.

It's not a question of good deeds outweighing bad ones, and no one's suggesting he be released except you. Lock him away for ever, or stick him on a heavily regulated island society of ex-murderers after his (hypothetical) term runs out, whatever - but by killing him, you're saying murder is acceptable.


Oh contrare! I am not suggesting that he be released. I am demanding he be put to death!

I tell you what. Pick a prisoner... any prisoner. Now, you pay for him to exist for the rest of his life. I sure as hell don't want to.

I am so sick of the bleeding heart liberals pussifying the world! Is it barbaric to want this murdering piece of crap to pay for his crimes with his life? If so, then GOOD!

Hey! the island is a great idea.... NOT! I would love to live on an island for the rest of my life... let's reward murderers with life on an island somewhere... good idea! PFFT!

By killing him, I am saying that murder is NOT acceptable, but that EXECUTION of murdering scum IS... Yep, that is what I am saying. You got that right, Bubba!

I've read and heard what the victims' families have to say and I understand their desire for revenge. But, is the purpose of our courts to exact revenge or to punish the criminal? What more could the families gain by his death than by his being in prison for the rest of his life?
You know, the Greeks asked this question about 2500 years ago and came up with the answer that punishment was better than revenge--it's in a series of plays called The Oresteia. Revenge tends to beget revenge, and offers little if any closure on the pain caused by a crime, and that doesn't change if it's frontier justice done by the brother of a murder victim or if it's a state doing the deed.

This isn't a thread about abortion. The only connection abortion has is in the belief of some, myself included, that a fetus is human at the time of conception, and abortion is the willful ending of a human life. This discussion is on the death penalty. Other than vengence dressed up as "justice", not one person has given a rational answer to what purpose execution serves the greater good.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/13296102.htm

Tookie Williams was one of the originators of the Crips gang. He was convicted of the murder of 4 people in 1979 during 2 armed robberies. Since then he has turned away from the gang mentality and written several books for young people discouraging them from joining gangs. He is sentenced to die by lethal injection in less than 2 weeks. Here are a couple of opinion pieces presenting the pros and cons of carrying out his execution:

Pro: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20380
Con: http://www.savetookie.org/bio.html

My question is, whatever his motives, if his writing can discourage one young person from violent activity, aren't we, by his death, sentencing others to death? And, what exactly, does his death accomplish? Will even one of the 4 victims return to life?

Those who know me on here, know I am several clicks right of a liberal, but I have some serious issues with this man's execution. What do you think?

PS: If this thread has been done before please let me know.

If you have been waiting over 20 years for a death sentence to be carried out, you might as well just get it converted to life without parole.

The man murdered in cold blood. Shooting someone in the back is low beyond comprehension. I don't believe that the death penalty is the best way to go about punishing him though. But I won't shed a tear when I know he's dead, he's done no good for society.

Oh contrare! I am not suggesting that he be released. I am demanding he be put to death!

I tell you what. Pick a prisoner... any prisoner. Now, you pay for him to exist for the rest of his life. I sure as hell don't want to.

I am so sick of the bleeding heart liberals pussifying the world! Is it barbaric to want this murdering piece of crap to pay for his crimes with his life? If so, then GOOD!

Hey! the island is a great idea.... NOT! I would love to live on an island for the rest of my life... let's reward murderers with life on an island somewhere... good idea! PFFT!

By killing him, I am saying that murder is NOT acceptable, but that EXECUTION of murdering scum IS... Yep, that is what I am saying. You got that right, Bubba!

A murder is a killing, isn't it? So is an execution. If you say it's OK for the _state_ to kill someone because that person is xyz, _of course_ you're promoting the idea that individuals killing people is a reasonable solution to the problems they cause. Calling one an execution and the other a murder is totally illogical, messy thinking, it's pure semantics.

Now, if you want to talk about alternatives to the death penalty, that's another issue altogther! I didn't for a second think that the whole 'dump 'em on an island' stategy would be taken seriously, but thanks for considering it :p

Elgesh']A murder is a killing, isn't it?

A murder is an unlawful killing.

If you have been waiting over 20 years for a death sentence to be carried out, you might as well just get it converted to life without parole.


Okay... that is just about the dumbest arguement against capital punishment that I have ever heard. I hope that you were just joking.

Only the criminal masterminds that can keep the appeals process hopelessly bound up for 20 years will be spared... geez, louise!

I am with Ron White... if there is overwhelming evidence that you did the time... then kill them now... no appeals.

Maybe he can be fed to poor families. In that way, some good will come from his dead.

Maybe he can be fed to poor families. In that way, some good will come from his dead.

Mmm.. all those years in that little cell on death row for 23 hours a day.. like a veal cow.. *drools*... too bad the guy's so old, all that fattening up goes to waste. :(

Elgesh']A murder is a killing, isn't it? So is an execution. If you say it's OK for the _state_ to kill someone because that person is xyz, _of course_ you're promoting the idea that individuals killing people is a reasonable solution to the problems they cause. Calling one an execution and the other a murder is totally illogical, messy thinking, it's pure semantics.

-snip-

So, everytime I use bug spray or anti-bacterial soap, I am murdering countless thousands, millions of beings!

The reason for calling it murder is to distinguish from lawful killing.

If someone tries to kill me, but I kill him in the course of defending my life, that is lawful killing, not murder!

My wife went through that, and the police congratulated her for her restraint(She waited until she was almost beaten senseless before pulling the trigger)!:sniper:

So yes, there is a difference.

Elgesh']A murder is a killing, isn't it? So is an execution. If you say it's OK for the _state_ to kill someone because that person is xyz, _of course_ you're promoting the idea that individuals killing people is a reasonable solution to the problems they cause. Calling one an execution and the other a murder is totally illogical, messy thinking, it's pure semantics.




Wrong! Murder was done to these four people without the benefit of trial by jury, or them being guilty of anything proven against society.

Your arguement cheapens the victims' and their families' loss. And is socially abhorant.

Good ol' Tookie was a convicted murdering thug. A jury of his peers convicted him and sentanced him to death. He had a lawyer. He had his day in court. Can you say that for his victims? Nope! This has nothing to do with semantics and you saying so doesn't make it so. It just shows your lack of an intelligent arguement to make, or simply your ignorance.

I don't want to bring the Bible into this because then the same old arguements start about religion and all that nonsense, but an 'eye for an eye'... I just wish we could kill him four times.

A murder is an unlawful killing.

But that's just a circular argument, isn't it?

<I hate having to keep writing 'the state' here, it's pretty lame but it's the only word that fits, so please excuse me :)>

Anyway, the state, in this case, is defining murder as an unlawful killing, yeah? But it's also the state that's giving itself the right to _lawfully_ kill! That's just a matter of convenience for it, of semantics - a circular argument:

"this killing was wrong because we said so, but that one was right."
"Why?"
"Well, because we said so!"

You can't justify/condemn a practise, any practise, just by giving it a different _name_, you have to give a reason as to _why_ it's different. My argument is that if the state approves killing as a solution in this context, it's implicitly saying that killing _per se_ isn't really wrong - logically, in fact, it's being hypocritical in prosecuting murderers!

Remove the death penalty, and a lot of these problems go away; and you're left with the relatively insignificant problem (j/k!) about what to do with your murderers, as a society.

Okay... that is just about the dumbest arguement against capital punishment that I have ever heard. I hope that you were just joking.

Only the criminal masterminds that can keep the appeals process hopelessly bound up for 20 years will be spared... geez, louise!

I am with Ron White... if there is overwhelming evidence that you did the time... then kill them now... no appeals.
I would agree, but I don't know and I doubt you know how he hasn't been executed for 20 years.

So, everytime I use bug spray or anti-bacterial soap, I am murdering countless thousands, millions of beings!

The reason for calling it murder is to distinguish from lawful killing.

If someone tries to kill me, but I kill him in the course of defending my life, that is lawful killing, not murder!

My wife went through that, and the police congratulated her for her restraint(She waited until she was almost beaten senseless before pulling the trigger)!:sniper:

So yes, there is a difference.

First of all, [NS:::]Elgesh did not include the extermination of disease spreading pests and bacteria as murder. He/she expressly applied it to the killing of one person by another person. Don't try to equate the death of a cockroach to that of a human. Killing someone in defense of your life is not murder, it is self defense and sometimes we are forced into making that choice. Execution is the pre-mediated, willful taking of another person
life who is no longer a threat. If Albert Owens had killed Tookie before he was killed, that would have been a rational action. Taking Tookie's life for killing Albert Owens is not self defense, but pre-meditated, state imposed murder.

Elgesh']You can't justify/condemn a practise, any practise, just by giving it a different _name_, you have to give a reason as to _why_ it's different. My argument is that if the state approves killing as a solution in this context, it's implicitly saying that killing _per se_ isn't really wrong - logically, in fact, it's being hypocritical in prosecuting murderers!


The government is saying that killing isn't wrong, per se.. sure. I don't see a problem with that. It's my opinion that killing is always undesirable, but not necessarily wrong in every case.. so I don't mind the government saying the same. I don't think there's a government on Earth whose policies dictate that killing is wrong in itself.

*snip*
I don't want to bring the Bible into this because then the same old arguements start about religion and all that nonsense, but an 'eye for an eye'... I just wish we could kill him four times.

'an eye for an eye' was in reference to property disputes. Read and understand before you quote.

Wrong! Murder was done to these four people without the benefit of trial by jury, or them being guilty of anything proven against society.

Your arguement cheapens the victims' and their families' loss. And is socially abhorant.

Good ol' Tookie was a convicted murdering thug. A jury of his peers convicted him and sentanced him to death. He had a lawyer. He had his day in court. Can you say that for his victims? Nope! This has nothing to do with semantics and you saying so doesn't make it so. It just shows your lack of an intelligent arguement to make, or simply your ignorance.

I don't want to bring the Bible into this because then the same old arguements start about religion and all that nonsense, but an 'eye for an eye'... I just wish we could kill him four times.

Now you're arguing properly, cheers! :)

Why would the act of having a jury, a judge, lawyers etc. justify a killing of another human being? Talk about a day in court, lawyers and so on are prety irrelevent to the act itself, are they not? By relying on this as a _justification_ for killing him, you might as well say (as we've been using him as an example) that Tookie's victims had their chance, could have convinced/outfought him, which is ridiculous!

If a society approves killing to solve its problems, it cannot be surprised when the individuals that comprise that society think and act the same way, can it?

Taking Tookie's life for killing Albert Owens is not self defense, but pre-meditated, state imposed murder.

"State imposed murder" is an oxymoron when it refers to a legal action - like the death penalty. It isn't murder, and your use of that term is much like the use of the term "murder" or "baby" when applied by anti-abortionists. It's essentially an appeal to emotion.

Taking "Tookie's" life for killing is punishment for his crimes. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Elgesh']But that's just a circular argument, isn't it?

<I hate having to keep writing 'the state' here, it's pretty lame but it's the only word that fits, so please excuse me :)>

Anyway, the state, in this case, is defining murder as an unlawful killing, yeah? But it's also the state that's giving itself the right to _lawfully_ kill! That's just a matter of convenience for it, of semantics - a circular argument:

"this killing was wrong because we said so, but that one was right."
"Why?"
"Well, because we said so!"

You can't justify/condemn a practise, any practise, just by giving it a different _name_, you have to give a reason as to _why_ it's different. My argument is that if the state approves killing as a solution in this context, it's implicitly saying that killing _per se_ isn't really wrong - logically, in fact, it's being hypocritical in prosecuting murderers!

Remove the death penalty, and a lot of these problems go away; and you're left with the relatively insignificant problem (j/k!) about what to do with your murderers, as a society.


WHAT??? That was the most incoherent babble of the thread. Congratulations! You get the prize.

I guess that you have never heard of a "gray area" or of justifiable homicide. Your narrow minded approach that all killing is murder is absurd to say the least. Things are seldom all this way or all that way. If I were to walk into my house and find some bastard raping my daughter, for instance, with a knife to her throat, he would be one dead son of a bitch shortly thereafter. I would not be convicted of murder, or even homicide in any form... in fact, I would walk free as a bird. Why? Because killing him would not be wrong. Now, if I was walking down the street and took out a glock and offed some other guy because he was wearing a red bandana and in my neighborhood we wear green, well then, I would be arrested and would probably be put to death... and rightly so.

I wonder where I have to sign to be the one to give the needle to Tookie.

Its easy to justify, Second treatsie the main document in the foundation of a modern democracy advocates death penelty strongly and gives plenty of justification for it.

"State imposed murder" is an oxymoron when it refers to a legal action - like the death penalty. It isn't murder, and your use of that term is much like the use of the term "murder" or "baby" when applied by anti-abortionists. It's essentially an appeal to emotion.

Taking "Tookie's" life for killing is punishment for his crimes. Nothing more. Nothing less.

No, it's not an emotional appeal. It is a firmly held belief that unborn children, or fetus if you prefer, as well as the lowest scum of the earth person are human life. Until we learn to respect the sanctity of life, all life, we will never be able to call ourselves truly civilized.

Elgesh']Now you're arguing properly, cheers! :)

Why would the act of having a jury, a judge, lawyers etc. justify a killing of another human being? Talk about a day in court, lawyers and so on are prety irrelevent to the act itself, are they not? By relying on this as a _justification_ for killing him, you might as well say (as we've been using him as an example) that Tookie's victims had their chance, could have convinced/outfought him, which is ridiculous!

If a society approves killing to solve its problems, it cannot be surprised when the individuals that comprise that society think and act the same way, can it?

I am not justifying killing him because he had a lawyer... I am saying we are justified in killing him because he did something so abhorant as to warrant being removed from life.

Society isn't using killing to solve its problems... unless the other fellow was right and we are going to use Tookie to feed the hungry... we are using it to solve SOME problems... like, for instance, how to get rid of Tookie.

Didn't that work pretty well?
no
in fact it outraged the populous to the point of a revelution. They killed all the heathenistic pigs who pushed for the punishment in the first place (which i find ironic)

No, it's not an emotional appeal. It is a firmly held belief that unborn children, or fetus if you prefer, as well as the lowest scum of the earth person are human life. Until we learn to respect the sanctity of life, all life, we will never be able to call ourselves truly civilized.

Stick to the point and stop muddling the thread with the abortion crap.

The question you posed was is killing TOOKIE justified. Last time I checked, it was too late to abort him before birth... so, now, we have to resort to retroactive birth control.

No, it's not an emotional appeal.

Using the term murder to apply to a just execution is an appeal to emotion since "murder" evokes far more outrage than "execution." Kind of like me calling democrats "nazis" because "authoritarian" doesn't have the same kind of emotional charge. In both cases the term is inappropriate.

It is a firmly held belief that unborn children, or fetus if you prefer, as well as the lowest scum of the earth person are human life. Until we learn to respect the sanctity of life, all life, we will never be able to call ourselves truly civilized.

We'll have to agree to disagree here.

The right to life is just as it says - a right. Universal and inalienable. Nothing Tookie did, whether it be wrong(murders) or right(anti-gang writing) changes the fact that as a human being he has a fundamental right to life.

We may not like it. We may want the bastard dead. But denying even one person the right to life, no matter what the reason, makes the right to life null. It becomes a privilage that the government or the masses can bestow or withdraw at whim. And when life is a privilage, how easy would it be for someone to decide YOU no longer have that privilage? Such a situation is a recipie for abuse.

I may not like Tookie. Hell, I hate the guy - he started a murderous gang. But his execution - and in the larger sense, any execution - is an assault on the one fundamental human right - the right to life. That, ladies and gentlemen, is more dangerous than a thousand Tookies, and certainly more dangerous than one Tookie confined for life behind bars where he can hurt no one else, and hell where he might be able to keep kids out of gangs.

Spare Tookie's life.

See what the victims' families have to say. Listen to them, afterall, they were victims of his evil deeds as well.
I agree with this. Let the families decide his fate. After all, he decided the fate of at least one member of each family. Some call this Poetic Justice.

Until we learn to respect the sanctity of life, all life, we will never be able to call ourselves truly civilized.

What'll we do about atheists then? :( We can't be civilized unless life is considered sacred? How do we deal with people who don't believe in divine qualities of things? Quite a conundrum.

I agree with this. Let the families decide his fate. After all, he decided the fate of at least one member of each family. Some call this Poetic Justice.
Then why don't we just get rid of the whole justice system altogether and go back to the days of frontier justice where families wiped each other out over matters of honor and revenge?

My question is, whatever his motives, if his writing can discourage one young person from violent activity, aren't we, by his death, sentencing others to death? And, what exactly, does his death accomplish? Will even one of the 4 victims return to life?
Firstly, his writings won't magically disappear, and secondly given that he has never apologised to his victims' families, I seriously doubt the writings would continue if he was granted clemency.

I agree with this. Let the families decide his fate. After all, he decided the fate of at least one member of each family. Some call this Poetic Justice.

I wouldn't want to put that burden on families as a practical matter.. having individuals decide when to legally kill others is something we prevent by codifying these things.. kinda the purpose behind the Law.

WHAT??? That was the most incoherent babble of the thread. Congratulations! You get the prize.

I guess that you have never heard of a "gray area" or of justifiable homicide. Your narrow minded approach that all killing is murder is absurd to say the least. Things are seldom all this way or all that way. If I were to walk into my house and find some bastard raping my daughter, for instance, with a knife to her throat, he would be one dead son of a bitch shortly thereafter. I would not be convicted of murder, or even homicide in any form... in fact, I would walk free as a bird. Why? Because killing him would not be wrong. Now, if I was walking down the street and took out a glock and offed some other guy because he was wearing a red bandana and in my neighborhood we wear green, well then, I would be arrested and would probably be put to death... and rightly so.

I wonder where I have to sign to be the one to give the needle to Tookie.

Mate, you're being childish; assuming you're a grown man with a house and children, argue accordingly!

Just to get it out the way first, my post can't have been 'incoherent babble' if you were able, in your next sentence, to consider it the result of a 'black and white' (as opposed to your, presumably, nuanced 'grey area') approach - implies I was able to get my arguments across :)

on with the motley.

"Your narrow minded approach that all killing is murder"

I don't remember writing that - I said several times that all murders were killings, and that all executions were killings as well - implying that your 'execution' differed from a 'murder' only in that you've given it a much butch-er, more red-blooded/gung-ho name - that it's purely a semantic difference (as I was saying in the post you quoted).

Not once did I reverse it and say all killings were murder! That's daft. To your example, I'd add self-defense, the need for armed forces and armed police to be allowed to use their best judgement without fear of prosecution and so on.

I generally support the death penalty. I would think in almost all cases I would a man like Tookie killed. Almost all.

Here I think the state should think about what is best for the people. Screw Tookie. Alive. Dead. Either way he is never going to reenter society. However, the people have nothing to gain from his death and something to gain from his life. His books are having an effect on gang violence. His continued literary efforts serve to stem violence far more than his death could ever do. It's clear that Tookie deserves to die. It's also clear that allowing him to live isn't exactly letting him off (he will remain in prison among violent offenders for the remainder of his life). It's particularly clear the most benefit to the people, including the victims, is to prevent future cases like this one. Allowing Tookie to continue his efforts is the most effective way to prevent future cases.

The right to life is just as it says - a right. Universal and inalienable. Nothing Tookie did, whether it be wrong(murders) or right(anti-gang writing) changes the fact that as a human being he has a fundamental right to life.

We may not like it. We may want the bastard dead. But denying even one person the right to life, no matter what the reason, makes the right to life null. It becomes a privilage that the government or the masses can bestow or withdraw at whim. And when life is a privilage, how easy would it be for someone to decide YOU no longer have that privilage? Such a situation is a recipie for abuse.

I may not like Tookie. Hell, I hate the guy - he started a murderous gang. But his execution - and in the larger sense, any execution - is an assault on the one fundamental human right - the right to life. That, ladies and gentlemen, is more dangerous than a thousand Tookies, and certainly more dangerous than one Tookie confined for life behind bars where he can hurt no one else, and hell where he might be able to keep kids out of gangs.

Spare Tookie's life.

Nicely put, worth a bump.

No, it's not an emotional appeal. It is a firmly held belief that unborn children, or fetus if you prefer, as well as the lowest scum of the earth person are human life. Until we learn to respect the sanctity of life, all life, we will never be able to call ourselves truly civilized.

I guess we will just have to disagree on how we show our respect for life...

How do we show that we respect the sanctity of life, all life?

We punish anyone who takes one of those lives!

And we show how much we respect the sanctity of life by making it the severest punishment---taking the life of the offender. Because the offender took what was a sacred gift and right to life away from an innocent soul, he does not get to keep his own.

By taking an innocent life, the murderer has forfeited his own. Them's the rules amongst civilized living folk. Don't like it? Walk around wearing a sign that says "my family will oppose the death penalty if you kill me".

By taking an innocent life, the murderer has forfeited his own. Them's the rules amongst civilized living folk. Don't like it? Walk around wearing a sign that says "my family will oppose the death penalty if you kill me".Actually, among most of what the world considers "civilized folk," there is no death penalty. Only the US among the western industrialized nations still has it--we are the oddballs, if you will, when it comes to that notion of "a life for a life."

I generally support the death penalty. I would think in almost all cases I would a man like Tookie killed. Almost all.

Here I think the state should think about what is best for the people. Screw Tookie. Alive. Dead. Either way he is never going to reenter society. However, the people have nothing to gain from his death and something to gain from his life. His books are having an effect on gang violence. His continued literary efforts serve to stem violence far more than his death could ever do. It's clear that Tookie deserves to die. It's also clear that allowing him to live isn't exactly letting him off (he will remain in prison among violent offenders for the remainder of his life). It's particularly clear the most benefit to the people, including the victims, is to prevent future cases like this one. Allowing Tookie to continue his efforts is the most effective way to prevent future cases.

He will remain in prison with his peers...that is supposed to be worse than being put to death?

This whole thread is about arguing for Tookie getting less than the punishment he deserves. Anyone can justify anything, if he deserves to avoid the ultimate punishment because he wrote a book or two. And how do we know that his books have prevented any gang killings? He refuses to give police any information about his gangs...

Elgesh']Nicely put, worth a bump.

:) Thank you sir.

No, it's not an emotional appeal. It is a firmly held belief that unborn children, or fetus if you prefer, as well as the lowest scum of the earth person are human life. Until we learn to respect the sanctity of life, all life, we will never be able to call ourselves truly civilized.
Bravo, you have derailed your own topic with pointless, off-topic babble.

And we show how much we respect the sanctity of life by making it the severest punishment---taking the life of the offender

Now that is newspeak!

You show respect for life by killing?

Killing is respect.

War is peace.

If I had a say in how justice was served, I'd inflict the same crime on the criminal as what he inflicted on an innocent. Knowing what they went through might change his outlook on the whole situation. Alas, someone said something about cruel and unusual punishment....

I've read and heard what the victims' families have to say and I understand their desire for revenge. But, is the purpose of our courts to exact revenge or to punish the criminal? What more could the families gain by his death than by his being in prison for the rest of his life?


One reason I support the death penalty is simply because I never have to worry about someone with nothing to lose killing again-ever. I dont need to think about him ever again.

Now-this is on a man thats been found guilty beyond a shadow of doubt and confessed.

One reason I dont support the death penalty is for all the poor INNOCENT bastards that are executed.

Killing someone is a huge responsibilty. I dont know if we are capable of carrying out in a responsible manner. Half the trials are of poor, ignorant scumbags that dont know their rights and cant get proper representation.
Others are tried by media and public opinion.

Then we have total evil scumbags that can afford slick scumbag attorneys and literally get away with murder by manipulating the system.

Ideally, under IDEAL circumstances-I support it the death penalty.

Unfortunately, we dont seem to have any ideal circumstances.

I dont support the death penalty for purposes of punishment or "revenge".

when life is a privilage, how easy would it be for someone to decide YOU no longer have that privilage? Such a situation is a recipie for abuse.




You mean like Tookie and his 9mm glock gang?

I agree with Mr. Spock. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. People like Tookie are a cancer on society. If you allow them to continue without excize them, they will eventually kill everything and the body society will die. You can't just wall off cancer. You have to remove it. Just because he became a jailhouse convert doesn't change that. As long as he is alive, he will infect society. Kill him and in two weeks all of you bleeding hearts will be on to your next cause. I think you are wasting your time, but it is your time to waste. I think you could better serve society as victims rights advocates... but hey, somebody has to do the dirty jobs... might as well be you.

He will remain in prison with his peers...that is supposed to be worse than being put to death?

Yes, prison is a wonderful place where inmates plant flowers and dance all day. At night fairies come in and wash their most intimate parts and then pleasure them.

Death is the easy way out. I guarantee you wouldn't want to be in prison with his peers. And I sincerely doubt those peers are big fans of his writing.

This whole thread is about arguing for Tookie getting less than the punishment he deserves. Anyone can justify anything, if he deserves to avoid the ultimate punishment because he wrote a book or two. And how do we know that his books have prevented any gang killings? He refuses to give police any information about his gangs...
No, it's not about Tookie at all. Who cares about him? If he'd have done it in another state he wouldn't be getting the death penalty and I still wouldn't care about him. I do however want to prevent future Tookies and want every effort to that end to be made. If I thought pulling out his fingernails would be the best way to make that happen that's what I would advocating. My post and much of the thread is making no argument about what Tookie gets or deserves. The thread is arguing about what society gets and deserves and what happens to Tookie is just related.

I don't care if he's sorry or if he repents. I care that he is trying to right some wrongs and his methods appear to be effective. If he gets stabbed tomorrow, I won't shed any tears, I'll tell you that. However, you are advocating actively stopping him from doing any good. Screw what Tookie deserves. What about what we as people deserve? Don't we deserve to stem the tide of violence? Don't we deserve to stop glamorizing gang activity? Don't we deserve peace and safety? Tookie's death brings us none of that but his life just might. I'm all for taking that chance.

Barring death, what do you think would be a good (and legal) punishment for Tookie?

Prison isn't the best. Although shitty not having freedom to run to the shops, you're still getting fed and housed by the government for life, never have to worry about where your next meal or money for the next bill is going to come from. Education is encouraged. You have access to TV and reading material. It's not all that bad. Put you in solitary confinement? Maybe a bit shittier, you're still being fed and given a warm bed and clothes on your back, so that's not suitable.

Looking at the situation from the point of the victims families, something's been torn from their lives for no good reason, maybe it should be that he should be deprived of the same basic right his victims were.

By taking an innocent life, the murderer has forfeited his own. Them's the rules amongst civilized living folk. Don't like it? Walk around wearing a sign that says "my family will oppose the death penalty if you kill me".

I'm making a t-shirt with that on it. It's not true but no one needs to know that. You do realize of course no one commits a crime going, "Wait, will I get the death penalty for this? I will?!? Well, crap. Screw that. *hugs the victim* Sorry about the threats and all that, old chap. Let's have a spot of tea."

The right to life is just as it says - a right. Universal and inalienable. Nothing Tookie did, whether it be wrong(murders) or right(anti-gang writing) changes the fact that as a human being he has a fundamental right to life.

We may not like it. We may want the bastard dead. But denying even one person the right to life, no matter what the reason, makes the right to life null. It becomes a privilage that the government or the masses can bestow or withdraw at whim. And when life is a privilage, how easy would it be for someone to decide YOU no longer have that privilage? Such a situation is a recipie for abuse.

I may not like Tookie. Hell, I hate the guy - he started a murderous gang. But his execution - and in the larger sense, any execution - is an assault on the one fundamental human right - the right to life. That, ladies and gentlemen, is more dangerous than a thousand Tookies, and certainly more dangerous than one Tookie confined for life behind bars where he can hurt no one else, and hell where he might be able to keep kids out of gangs.

Spare Tookie's life.


If someone takes away an innocent person's right to life, how do you rectify that?

Elgesh']

I don't remember writing that - I said several times that all murders were killings, and that all executions were killings as well - implying that your 'execution' differed from a 'murder' only in that you've given it a much butch-er, more red-blooded/gung-ho name - that it's purely a semantic difference (as I was saying in the post you quoted).

Not once did I reverse it and say all killings were murder! That's daft. To your example, I'd add self-defense, the need for armed forces and armed police to be allowed to use their best judgement without fear of prosecution and so on.

AH! Then I was right! Your arguement was incoherent... because I certainly got the idea that you were saying all killing was murder... and you are right, because that IS daft, and seems to be the point you are making AGAIN in this statement.

But by saying that the only difference between 'execution' and 'murder' is semantics shows that you have know understanding of these terms. As I explained earlier, while these are both killing, on which we agree, they are markedly different... which your simpleton intellect cannot seem to grasp. You continually clutch the idea that an execution is murder... which is wrong.

Elgesh']

I don't remember writing that - I said several times that all murders were killings, and that all executions were killings as well - implying that your 'execution' differed from a 'murder' only in that you've given it a much butch-er, more red-blooded/gung-ho name - that it's purely a semantic difference (as I was saying in the post you quoted).

Not once did I reverse it and say all killings were murder! That's daft. To your example, I'd add self-defense, the need for armed forces and armed police to be allowed to use their best judgement without fear of prosecution and so on.

AH! Then I was right! Your arguement was incoherent... because I certainly got the idea that you were saying all killing was murder... and you are right, because that IS daft, and seems to be the point you are making AGAIN in this statement.

But by saying that the only difference between 'execution' and 'murder' is semantics shows that you have no understanding of these terms. As I explained earlier, while these are both killing, on which we agree, they are markedly different... which your simpleton intellect cannot seem to grasp. You continually clutch the idea that an execution is murder... which is wrong.

Elgesh']

I don't remember writing that - I said several times that all murders were killings, and that all executions were killings as well - implying that your 'execution' differed from a 'murder' only in that you've given it a much butch-er, more red-blooded/gung-ho name - that it's purely a semantic difference (as I was saying in the post you quoted).

Not once did I reverse it and say all killings were murder! That's daft. To your example, I'd add self-defense, the need for armed forces and armed police to be allowed to use their best judgement without fear of prosecution and so on.

AH! Then I was right! Your arguement was incoherent... because I certainly got the idea that you were saying all killing was murder... and you are right, because that IS daft, and seems to be the point you are making AGAIN in this statement.

But by saying that the only difference between 'execution' and 'murder' is semantics shows that you have no understanding of these terms. As I explained earlier, while these are both killing, on which we agree, they are markedly different... which your simpleton intellect cannot seem to grasp. You continually clutch the idea that an execution is murder... which is wrong.

Hm. Interesting topic. I'll throw my two cents in.

It seems that there are no "inalienable" rights. The right to life can be taken away if you commit murder. The right to vote can be taken away/not given at all if you commit a felony, or as the US' past shows, if you were black or a woman. I wonder if we don't have "rights" so much as we have "priviliges that are really hard to take away."

Many of us are fine with this, so for the sake of my argument we'll assume that the above is all right and not worth changing. On one of the other forums, someone said something along the lines of:

"Murder (or voluntary manslaughter) is an illegal slaying. Anything else is a killing and is justified by law."

I agree with this statement. It allows us to kill someone in self defense, for example. If you do not agree with the above statement, then my argument will not mean anything to you.

As of now, the Supreme Court acknowledges both the execution of criminals and the act of abortion as legal. Therefore, under the above definition, neither one can be murder. If we want to outlaw either of these practices, we must find a practical reason for why we should change the laws. Since this topic is about execution, I will discuss that.

Statistics show that the death penalty is not an effective means of deterring murder. Therefore, that argument is moot. A much stronger argument is whether the taxpayers should support a murderer for the rest of his life. This leads to the question of "can you put a value on human life?" The answer is at least a relative yes. Most people would agree that the life of someone like Gandhi or Mother Theresa is worth more than a drug addict who is killed in a gang fight. They are worth more in terms of their moral achievements. Donald Trump is worth more than the local pet store owner in terms of monetary value. It stands to reason that a value can be placed on a human life.

So are the benefits of keeping this man alive, such as his writing books and discouraging gangs, enough to outweigh the benefits of killing him? Killing him would show a weakness in the justice system's ability to carry out its sentencing, and it would put an ease on the local taxpayers. Emotional responses like "justice" and "revenge" should be irrelevant because while some find "eye-for-an-eye" to be justice, others do not and both have reasonable arguments.

Should Tookie die? Yes. He committed a crime and in this case, its important to uphold the standard of the law. People who oppose the death penalty should pose the arguments against killing prisoners in hopes that they can change the laws in the future.

(note that this is for cases where the prisoner has either confessed or is in another way proven guilty. Cases where the law is falsely executing innocent people should not be put under this argument)

If someone takes away an innocent person's right to life, how do you rectify that?
How does killing that person rectify it?


Criminals commit crimes because they do not believe that they will get caught, not because they can hang with the punishment. The death penalty does not reduce the number of murders in areas where it is used, as a deterant it is useless. There are some other stats but since I can't link them or verify them I won't use them.

It's barbarism. Killing for killing does not make us civilized, even if we do it with nice clean robes and cerimony and needles-it's thugs with clubs playing dress up.

The inability to undo a killing alone should have long removed the practice as our system has proved itself as anything but infalible. That we would continue to execute people knowing we get it wrong is fucking barbaric. It's sickening that people would consider it civilized.

Criminals commit crimes because they do not believe that they will get caught, not because they can hang with the punishment. The death penalty does not reduce the number of murders in areas where it is used, as a deterant it is useless. There are some other stats but since I can't link them or verify them I won't use them.

That's the problem with having the punishment fit the crime.. deterrents work best when the punishment is far worse than the crime - something the Constitution isn't going to permit. Lack of deterrent effect doesn't make much difference though.. even jailtime has little deterrent effect, but that doesn't stop us from issuing it.

How does killing that person rectify it?


Criminals commit crimes because they do not believe that they will get caught, not because they can hang with the punishment. The death penalty does not reduce the number of murders in areas where it is used, as a deterant it is useless. There are some other stats but since I can't link them or verify them I won't use them.

It's barbarism. Killing for killing does not make us civilized, even if we do it with nice clean robes and cerimony and needles-it's thugs with clubs playing dress up.

The inability to undo a killing alone should have long removed the practice as our system has proved itself as anything but infalible. That we would continue to execute people knowing we get it wrong is fucking barbaric. It's sickening that people would consider it civilized.


I do agree that it does not act as a deterrant. All in all, I do not agree that the death penalty is warranted in the vast majority of cases. However, when someone murders four innocent people in cold blood, I want to know that he'd not going to be out and about in a few years, doing exactly the same thing again to some other poor soul. Even though, chances are he's not going to be hanging around street corners at his age, I'd sleep better knowing that he's not around to influence other gang members. According to the pro death penalty in the first post, he's still as active as prison will allow. Unfortunately, the down side of this is he will be martyred by the other gang members, who might want to seek revenge for his death.

I don't think there's a right and wrong side to this arguement, just a never ending disagreement between two parties with relatively similar morals

AH! Then I was right! Your arguement was incoherent... because I certainly got the idea that you were saying all killing was murder... and you are right, because that IS daft, and seems to be the point you are making AGAIN in this statement.

But by saying that the only difference between 'execution' and 'murder' is semantics shows that you have no understanding of these terms. As I explained earlier, while these are both killing, on which we agree, they are markedly different... which your simpleton intellect cannot seem to grasp. You continually clutch the idea that an execution is murder... which is wrong.

Here we fall down :) My argument is incoherent because you didn't understand it then made up a point I never made?

And equally, I don't understand how you can possibly believe that a state-killing differs from a tookie-style killing just because the state says it does and gives it a different name! _Why_ is the idea that an execution and a murder are the same type of killing wrong? I still don't understand why you think there's a difference.

And I suspect I'm not going to, nor are you going to 'get' my point of view either :) Anyway, I'm knocking off for the night soon, I think; enjoyed the arguing, and thank you for replying to my posts. I still totally disagree with you (and vice versa I'm sure :p), but it was a worthwhile way to waste our time, I think! :D

Alas, my ride home awaits. Kill Tookie or don't, in the grand scheme of things, does it really matter?

How does killing that person rectify it?


Criminals commit crimes because they do not believe that they will get caught, not because they can hang with the punishment. The death penalty does not reduce the number of murders in areas where it is used, as a deterant it is useless. There are some other stats but since I can't link them or verify them I won't use them.

It's barbarism. Killing for killing does not make us civilized, even if we do it with nice clean robes and cerimony and needles-it's thugs with clubs playing dress up.

The inability to undo a killing alone should have long removed the practice as our system has proved itself as anything but infalible. That we would continue to execute people knowing we get it wrong is fucking barbaric. It's sickening that people would consider it civilized.

You're going to dislike my answer, but I think it comes down to money. I think the process should be made less costly and more efficient and people who are never, ever getting out of prison should be put to death so we are forced to support them for the rest of their lifes. Old people get less support than criminals (but that's a whole other issue). Plus, prisons are overcrowded (which of course could be rectified by not throwing people in prison for their personal practices).

I do agree with all your arguments about getting it wrong and about not being a deterrent.

Personally I think our burden to choose death penalty should be a little stiffer though. Three strikes and you're out should refer to death. Three violent felonies where the victim was either sexually assaulted or could have been killed (murder, attempted murder, rape, armed robbery, molestation) and ding, your number's up. That way even if you're innocent, you're not REALLY innocent. Statistics show that with each felony you are significantly more likely to commit another. After a point, allowing them to re-enter society is just daft. The only appeals should be based on conviction and not on the sentence (as the sentence would be mandatory).

I think the only exceptions should be in the case of mass murderers and particularly heinous crimes. Incidentally, I think these are also the only cases that should be eligible for life in prison.

The right to life is just as it says - a right. Universal and inalienable. Nothing Tookie did, whether it be wrong(murders) or right(anti-gang writing) changes the fact that as a human being he has a fundamental right to life.

We may not like it. We may want the bastard dead. But denying even one person the right to life, no matter what the reason, makes the right to life null. It becomes a privilage that the government or the masses can bestow or withdraw at whim. And when life is a privilage, how easy would it be for someone to decide YOU no longer have that privilage? Such a situation is a recipie for abuse.

I may not like Tookie. Hell, I hate the guy - he started a murderous gang. But his execution - and in the larger sense, any execution - is an assault on the one fundamental human right - the right to life. That, ladies and gentlemen, is more dangerous than a thousand Tookies, and certainly more dangerous than one Tookie confined for life behind bars where he can hurt no one else, and hell where he might be able to keep kids out of gangs.

Spare Tookie's life.

I hate to leave a good discussion, but I had to run an errand. I'm glad to see you carried it on. Let me state the basis of my opinion and my beliefs. Though it may be offensive to some, I am spiritual and I have a firm belief, no, a knowledge, that there is a God. Let me go from there, and apply the foundation of my opinions to all.

People often see the opposite of pro-life as pro-choice. That is inaccurate. The opposite of pro-life might be better termed conditional-life. When you claim to be pro-life and argue against abortion, but applaud the death penalty (which is the killing of one person by another or others which = murder) then you are trying to argue both sides of the issue. If you do not recognize all life as precious, then you are conditional-life. Now, the problem with being conditional-life. Today's popular opinion is that some crimes and certain stages of development are not worthy of the right to life. Popular opinions in the past and in some cultures today make life a negatable option for everything from different political views, advanced age, birth defects, or even sexual identity. Everything old, becomes new. If society can base life and death decisions on current popular opinion, then no one can ever be assured of the right to life.

So, if you don't want to worry that some day an aged loved one is determined expendable as they consume too many of our resources without providing adequate benefit to society, you need to take a broader view of the policies you are supporting.

Spare Tookie's life

and take a giant leap towards civilization.

See what the victims' families have to say. Listen to them, afterall, they were victims of his evil deeds as well.
Sure. And why not let them execute him, as well?

It just has to be about the hubris...

Stick to the point and stop muddling the thread with the abortion crap.

The question you posed was is killing TOOKIE justified. Last time I checked, it was too late to abort him before birth... so, now, we have to resort to retroactive birth control.

Let me muddy it up some more. Pro-life extends to abortion, euthenasia, and even death row murderers. Not to get us off on a side discussion of euthenasia, but if you have a discussion with a pro-life person, all of these things are entwined. Life is the most precious possession we have. The taking of one life for another is like 2 wrongs make a right...and we all know that that isn't true. The taking of a life is nothing but wrong whether it is done in a drugged state of idiotic rage or cloaked in the self-righteous guise of misapplied justice.

Bravo, you have derailed your own topic with pointless, off-topic babble.

No, I didn't. You just don't view life in the same way I do.

No, it's not an emotional appeal. It is a firmly held belief that unborn children, or fetus if you prefer, as well as the lowest scum of the earth person are human life. Until we learn to respect the sanctity of life, all life, we will never be able to call ourselves truly civilized.

How is the value of Tookie's life as compared to the value of the unborn's life off topic? Tookie is a living breathing human being. We all make mistakes all throughout our lives, and granted his mistakes are worse than most, but how does that endow us with the right to decide his right to life or death based on his crimes. Equally, how does that endow us with the right to determine life or death for a person in a particular stage of growth and development?

No, I didn't. You just don't view life in the same way I do.
Yes, you did. This topic has nothing to do with abortion, your views on abortion, or your views upon when human life should be recognized.

How is the value of Tookie's life as compared to the value of the unborn's life off topic?
This here is what we call an apple. It is kind of tough and has many color skins. This here is an orange. It is, well, orange, and is always round and kind of squishy.

I feel I should not have to quote your own topic post to you to show you the topic of this thread is whether or not Tookie's turn around in jail and attempts to prevent teens from suffering his same fate through his writings merits clemency from the death penalty.

How does killing that person rectify it?


Criminals commit crimes because they do not believe that they will get caught, not because they can hang with the punishment. The death penalty does not reduce the number of murders in areas where it is used, as a deterant it is useless. There are some other stats but since I can't link them or verify them I won't use them.

It's barbarism. Killing for killing does not make us civilized, even if we do it with nice clean robes and cerimony and needles-it's thugs with clubs playing dress up.

The inability to undo a killing alone should have long removed the practice as our system has proved itself as anything but infalible. That we would continue to execute people knowing we get it wrong is fucking barbaric. It's sickening that people would consider it civilized.

Extremely well said. Amen.

Nothing Tookie did, whether it be wrong(murders) or right(anti-gang writing) changes the fact that as a human being he has a fundamental right to life.

Actually, Kant would say that by murdering innocents he has abrogated his right to life.

Actually, Kant would say that by murdering innocents he has abrogated his right to life.
And by doing good things he earned the right to be treated well himself.
Since he's been in jail he worked to prevent kids from getting killed out there, he's tried to make the world a better place.
Chances are that he actually has saved a few lives with his work - but that is of course difficult to establish.

So looking at it like that, now he's earned his right to life again.

Yes, you did. This topic has nothing to do with abortion, your views on abortion, or your views upon when human life should be recognized.
This here is what we call an apple. It is kind of tough and has many color skins. This here is an orange. It is, well, orange, and is always round and kind of squishy.
I feel I should not have to quote your own topic post to you to show you the topic of this thread is whether or not Tookie's turn around in jail and attempts to prevent teens from suffering his same fate through his writings merits clemency from the death penalty.

If you had read the entire thread through, you would know that early on a poster supported the death penalty while condemning abortion. This is hypocrisy and cannot be ignored. It also stands to prove the connection of any and all end to life by the will of mankind.

to get back to the actual topic of the thread...what does society or you as an individual have to gain by the death of this person, especially as compared to the positive influence that he has had on the young people who are most at risk of repeating his mistakes? How do we, as a purported civilized society, shun the killing of another human being unless it is stamped and approved by our government in which case it is to be embraced? How do we as mere mortals believe that we have the knowledge or foresight to determine who merits death based on their imperfections or net worth?

Extremely well said. Amen.
Wow-Praise from Caesar, cool :cool: Thanks man

And by doing good things he earned the right to be treated well himself.
Since he's been in jail he worked to prevent kids from getting killed out there, he's tried to make the world a better place.
Chances are that he actually has saved a few lives with his work - but that is of course difficult to establish.

So looking at it like that, now he's earned his right to life again.
No he hasn't. He has yet to apologize to the victims families, as I noted before. He has not shown remorse for his crimes other than the fact that they got him stuck in prison. Fuck clemency. Since he has not apologized, he sure as hell ain't sorry, which leads to the probability that the books and everything else is nothing more than a gambit to get him off death row.

Who are we trying to prove is the most civilized? The criminal we are about to kill? Hmm....

To the Europeans? Are certain civilizations better than others? Are Europeans therefore more civilized than those of the Middle-East in that sense? No.

To the world? Sorry, but it's a dark and scary place out there.

Tookie's going to die and we'll all fucking enjoy it.

Wow-Praise from Caesar, cool :cool: Thanks man

mmmmmm....I suspect that Cat has similar views as you and I on a person's right to life. We do disagree with when those rights take effect, but I think the respect for others is mutual.

If you had read the entire thread through, you would know that early on a poster supported the death penalty while condemning abortion. This is hypocrisy and cannot be ignored.
That is no reason to see how far off track you can derail the speeding stream-thread.

Who are we trying to prove is the most civilized? The criminal we are about to kill? Hmm....

No - but by executing citizens, you suggest the state is as barbarous as that murderer

To the world? Sorry, but it's a dark and scary place out there.

Tookie's going to die and we'll all fucking enjoy it.

It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness, let alone embrace it :) Not killing criminals, despite their awful crimes, is a way to make the world less dark, less scary. More civilised.

mmmmmm....I suspect that Cat has similar views as you and I on a person's right to life. We do disagree with when those rights take effect, but I think the respect for others is mutual.
I am a big fan of Cat's posts, he sets a high standard and I'm not being sarcastic when I say I'm delighted to have been noted by him.

Elgesh']No - but by executing citizens, you suggest the state is as barbarous as that murderer
No no, but executing the murderer you suggest that justice has been served and a rightful punishment has been given.



It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness, let alone embrace it :) Not killing criminals, despite their awful crimes, is a way to make the world less dark, less scary. More civilised.
What's it like living in the world I thought existed when I was 5?

No he hasn't. He has yet to apologize to the victims families, as I noted before. He has not shown remorse for his crimes other than the fact that they got him stuck in prison. Fuck clemency. Since he has not apologized, he sure as hell ain't sorry, which leads to the probability that the books and everything else is nothing more than a gambit to get him off death row.
You used Kant, I used Kant. It is true that if he only tried to appear good, while not really being good, that would be a problem.

But you have absolutely no way of telling, and if he has not appologised, then that still tells you little if you don't know the circumstances of the case. Fact of the matter is that he still maintains his innocence...and appologising for something you didn't do...well, it's a no-no.

NS:::ELGESH - It's better to light a candle than curse the darkness, let alone embrace it Not killing criminals, despite their awful crimes, is a way to make the world less dark, less scary. More civilised.

What's it like living in the world I thought existed when I was 5?

? Every society is in a state of constant flux. Its members can actively try to improve it, or live with/by it, or by their actions/inactions, make it that little bit worse. Those are the only 3 possibilities!

It's a trite cliche to say that small actions can have great consequences in the long run, but it's true! :)

I am a big fan of Cat's posts, he sets a high standard and I'm not being sarcastic when I say I'm delighted to have been noted by him.

I have run across Cat several times and have always been on the opposite side of the discussion. I have been awed by his knowledge and envious of his apparent ability to pull sources out of his butt to support his opinion. I have to admit I got a little thrill (and maybe a little damp in the panties) that I finally don't have to argue with him on a topic.

No he hasn't. He has yet to apologize to the victims families, as I noted before. He has not shown remorse for his crimes other than the fact that they got him stuck in prison. Fuck clemency. Since he has not apologized, he sure as hell ain't sorry, which leads to the probability that the books and everything else is nothing more than a gambit to get him off death row.

Throughout he has maintained his innocence and therefore does not owe an apology. Suppose this is a lie. Suppose that the books he wrote that have had a positive influence on at-risk children are a ploy to avoid death. Suppose he never writes another word that influences our youth to take a higher road to life. What does it matter in the over-all picture? And what is that picture? Based on his perspective of right and wrong at that time in his life he thought the killing of other people was the correct course. Based on society's current popular opinion of right and wrong his death is the correct course. So, we're right, he's wrong, because we have barbaric laws that allow our doing to him what he did to others based on his own definition? What in your perception of right and wrong can ever accept the willful ending of another person's life?

You can never claim to abhor needless killing as long as you support the death penalty. If you condemn murder and yet support the death penalty you are as low as the criminal who kills for his own gain. And, as yet, the only gain to society that has been provided in this discussion is revenge.

You can never claim to abhor needless killing as long as you support the death penalty. If you condemn murder and yet support the death penalty you are as low as the criminal who kills for his own gain. And, as yet, the only gain to society that has been provided in this discussion is revenge.
:rolleyes:

You so don't want me to get real on you if you think it's this black and white.

:rolleyes:

You so don't want me to get real on you if you think it's this black and white.
Real in which bizarro world?

What good comes of the execution of any person? It doesn't undo the crimes they committed.
I agree with you 1000% on this one.

You can never claim to abhor needless killing as long as you support the death penalty. If you condemn murder and yet support the death penalty you are as low as the criminal who kills for his own gain. And, as yet, the only gain to society that has been provided in this discussion is revenge.

Well said.

You can never claim to abhor needless killing as long as you support the death penalty. If you condemn murder and yet support the death penalty you are as low as the criminal who kills for his own gain. And, as yet, the only gain to society that has been provided in this discussion is revenge.
Two for two with support on this one as well as the previous one.

Yup, it all appears to be about revenge, which is absurd.

That's a tough one. Tookie is probably the closest thing to a reformed man.

Probably the mistake of the whole debate is calling it justice.

After all, if we execute a serial killer that murdered 16 people, do we tell the familes of the victims they got 4 times more justice then the familes affected by Tookie?

Execution is dispencing injustice. Under the pretence for the safety of the community.

Now the matter is when do we execute a person? As Mark Twain once commented do we execute a butterfly? Of course not murder is not in his nature. How about the Tiger? Murder is in his nature but he has to do it to survive.

Some people can be labeled mantigers. They murder because it's in their nature. How do we protect society form them? Can we guarantee they will remained locked away forever?

It is interesting that we will rush out to kill a mountain lion or a bear that would prey on man. It's the right thing to do!

Yet, we faced with a man that preys on men, killing him is wrong?

Probably the best thing to do would be to remove politics from the matter. If you want to appear strong on stoping crime, you spout you are for the death penalty. It's electionering and people should realize it.

Can anybody show executions have lessoned murder let alone crime?

I yield the soap box.